How come a law passed in another country over 400 years ago has any influence in Australia today?

It seems to me that, if the situation is as reported, then "speaking from the grave" now includes speaking from an irrelevant, forgotten past.

If only our politicians had spines, they would ensure that ancient voodoo foreign laws affecting Australia and Australians get parliamentary review routinely and thoroughly.

Memo My Turnbull: "Given that you advocate a plebiscite as the way forward for social matters such as marriage then do you support holding a plebiscite of all Australian voters on the subjects of (a) full separation of church and state and (b) taxation of churches at state and federal levels? Do you support enactment of legislation which matches the modest Greek example cited in this article? I ask this because I seek to add my voice to that of Max Wallace and the Humanists Association regarding these issues."

To clear up the confusion around the Christian church and tax, it seems it would be better to make it the official state religion that is supported by a compulsory 1-2% tax on all citizens like they have in Denmark and other very successful countries.

I have no time for "humanists", but I agree that there should be no tax breaks for churches; particularly the activist ones like the Uniting Church and the Anglican Church, who are continually sticking their noses into government policy on border protection and other matters which are no business of theirs. They have become political.

The same applies to charities and NGO's. Did you know that a "charity" can claim tax concessions whether or not it actually dispenses a single cent to any cause, thanks to a High Court judgement? There is at least one such organisation which busybodys itself 'instructing' governments where they should be placing foreign aid. No official credentials, of course, and it is not known if government takes any notice of them.

Why should Australian taxpayers be funding job-creating schemes for activists whose causes they may vehemently oppose?

Why don't you approve of "activist" organisations, ttbn?

What possible excuse can there be for advocating that organisations with opinions be penalised for expressing them?

Will you next advocate banning of political parties and installation of a one-party state?

Or, perhaps, imprisonment for those who disagree with you?

I subscribe to the quaint notion that a vibrant and fair community has at its core an acceptance of all points of view, on all subjects, without exception, as well as to sue and to be sued if they don't comply with society's rules, ie the law of the land, as equals with us all and alongside other organisations.

Don't you?

I agree with Brian Morris Max!

But particularly, when a so called religious organisation can and does operate commercial business ventures, a rent roll, laundry or dry cleaning, a bottle shop?

With voluntary unpaid or underpaid staff; and in direct competition to other conventional business operations that are both obliged to pay tax and minimum wages!

Let them declare all income and current outgoings, starting with the very next new financial year, including salary/stipend entitlements and collected fees, offsetting repairs and refurbishments! And accompanied by normal tax invoices, kept as proof on outgoing recurrents/legitimate operational expenditure!

The only exception? That collected on the plate on sundays/observed holy day!

And obtain immediate, ready willing and able compliance, by threatening to backdate retrospective enabling legislation?

This risible rubbish has been going on for far too long!
Alan B.

Oh dear a humanist banging on about a churches 'tax'break. The faithful giving to churches have already paid tax on the money. Unlike the 'rationalist'faith people of rational faith give of their own earnings rather than sucking the public purse. I would imagine compared with the humanist ngo schemes and the billions scammed by gw alarmist it would be small bickies we are taliking about. Also look at the billions given to 'secular education'often with very poor outcomes compared to much less given to private schools who generally have far better outcomes for their buck. Max claims to be a rationalist although with no real moral basis to make his ridulous assertions and the failure of his faith to prove a tiny bit rational I suspect his conclusions come more from hatred than reason.